Comments on Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and TobaccoTypePad2013-12-02T11:29:56ZDMhttps://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/12/peter-hitchens-on-the-legal-drugs-alcohol-and-tobacco/comments/atom.xml/Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01a3facbd459970b2013-12-20T12:30:53Z2013-12-20T16:42:28ZJoshua WoodersonCyrus – 'This statement is ad hominem, untrue and unsupportable.' Quite right. I had no basis for making that accusation,...<p>Cyrus – &#39;This statement is ad hominem, untrue and unsupportable.&#39;</p>
<p>Quite right. I had no basis for making that accusation, so I apologise. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, I stand by my suggestion that the results of the Swiss HAT scheme are more damaging to your position than you seem to believe.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how the new legal high legislation plays out. I suspect the notion of &#39;similar effects&#39; may be too much subject to interpretation to allow the authorities reliably to secure convictions, although the Japanese seem rather more blasé about civil liberties than we are in this country (suspected criminals can be detained for much longer without charge, for instance). </p>
<p>Interestingly, a number of sources I came across suggested that drug use in Japan, though still negligible by Western standards, has increased considerably in recent years, without, to my knowledge, any change in the law&#39;s approach. The reason posited was that Japanese youth had become acquainted with the drug culture of other countries while backpacking abroad, and that consequently the taboo against drug use was beginning to break down among the younger generation. </p>
<p>I suspect we may be the only ones still reading this exchange, but I look forward to continuing it. Merry Christmas to you, too. </p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01a3fab37962970b2013-12-19T00:58:03Z2013-12-19T10:50:57ZCyrusThere are a couple new (to me) papers listed here (I've seen many of them before). I'll take a look,...<p>There are a couple new (to me) papers listed here (I&#39;ve seen many of them before). I&#39;ll take a look, and bring it up at our next exchange after the holidays.</p>
<p>You said, “I fail to see how a post-liberalisation decrease in drink driving of 12% is not evidence of a &#39;substantial, post-legalization substitution of drug use.&#39;”</p>
<p>Really? Well, okay.</p>
<p>On Switzerland. You said, “you say &#39;You&#39;re showing that a small, strictly controlled medical program may work and can have benefits while drugs are still illegal.&#39; This is disingenuous. Had the Swiss programme been a failure, you would almost certainly be trumpeting it as evidence that full-blown legalisation would be a disaster“.</p>
<p>This statement is ad hominem, untrue and unsupportable. In fact, if I were going to do something like that I could have just beat you over the head with the Swiss heroin park failure. I didn&#39;t, and I wouldn&#39;t. Similarly, as I said, Swiss heroin maintenance and legalization are very different. Feel free to keep dumping buckets of slime on me. But I put this to the judgment of those reading these comments.</p>
<p>On Japan. The US analog act didn&#39;t implement control of the sale of legal drugs with similar effects to controlled drugs while legal; the Japanese legislation includes widespread regulation implemented to control the sale of drugs with similar effects to current illicit substances (and any in the new classifications), even while legal. The analog act required substances be similar to current substances, before being made illegal; the Japanese legislation added new classifications accounting for the various types of legal highs. The analog act required the substances be intended for human consumption, which created a huge loophole for clever salespeople; the Japanese legislation has no such caveat, allowing the government to regularly assess legal drugs and simply re-designate their status where appropriate. The analog act also lacked the benefit of the UNODC&#39;s early warning advisory system implemented this year. Of course, the Japanese legislation just passed mid-last year, but I see no reason why it can&#39;t keep up.</p>
<p>I leave it to the readers of this exchange (if they&#39;re interested in it) to examine everything that&#39;s been said previously here, weigh, compare and judge it. Due to the aforementioned time of year, this comment will be my final one under this article (though, Mr. Wooderson may want the last word).</p>
<p>Have a Happy Christmas, Mr. Wooderson.</p>Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b0339d9e0970d2013-12-18T15:22:26Z2013-12-18T16:49:26ZJoshua WoodersonCyrus – Anderson's paper shows that traffic fatalities fell by between eight and eleven percent in states that had legalised...<p>Cyrus – Anderson&#39;s paper shows that traffic fatalities fell by between eight and eleven percent in states that had legalised medical marijuana. As far I can tell, it doesn&#39;t explicitly state whether the total number of crashes decreased, but I think it reasonable to assume as much (and if the number of non-fatal crashes increases as a result of drug liberalisation while the number of fatal crashes declines, that seems to me a positive trade-off). </p>
<p>I fail to see how a post-liberalisation decrease in drink driving of 12% is not evidence of a &#39;substantial, post-legalization substitution of drug use&#39; (there was also a 5% fall in beer sales in medical marijuana states). One might reasonably assume that much of the substitution occurs among young people, who are disproportionately involved in alcohol-related crimes.</p>
<p>Further studies supporting the substitution theory are Frank J. Chaloupka and Adit Laixuthai, &#39;Do Youths Substitute Alcohol and Marijuana? Some Econometric Evidence&#39;, Lucas, &#39;Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs: A dispensary-based survey of substitution effect in Canadian medical cannabis patients&#39;, Reiman, &#39;Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs&#39;, and more.</p>
<p>There is also a substantial body of evidence that driving under the influence of marijuana is, though dangerous, considerably less so than driving under the influence of alcohol. See: G. Chesher and M. Longo, &#39;Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents&#39;, Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, &#39;Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy&#39;,M. Bates and T. Blakely, &#39;Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes&#39;, etc. Cannabis use is also less associated with a variety of other social problems – violence and anti-social behaviour, for instance – than alcohol. </p>
<p>Re. Switzerland, you say &#39;You&#39;re showing that a small, strictly controlled medical program may work and can have benefits while drugs are still illegal.&#39; This is disingenuous. Had the Swiss programme been a failure, you would almost certainly be trumpeting it as evidence that full-blown legalisation would be a disaster. One shouldn&#39;t of course draw too many conclusions about the likely consequences of more comprehensive legalisation from this policy, but nor are its results entirely irrelevant. </p>
<p>I&#39;m not sure I understand your point re. Japanese policy on legal highs. No doubt some attempt has been made to control their proliferation, but I&#39;m not convinced that any law would be capable of keeping up with the producers. Certainly the &#39;analogue laws&#39; used in the US have a number of problems. </p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b03364939970c2013-12-18T11:12:55Z2013-12-18T11:12:55ZCyrusOn Japan. I lacked room yesterday. But I'll save you potential words.. I think it's fundamentally top-down policy. In mid-2012,...<p>On Japan. I lacked room yesterday. But I&#39;ll save you potential words..</p>
<p>I think it&#39;s fundamentally top-down policy. In mid-2012, the number of legal high variants (or NPS) exceeded the number of substances under control. These figures seem to have been considered significant enough they triggered the start of formulating UNODC&#39;s recently implemented early warning advisory system on legal highs. Very shortly after (during) mid-2012, the Japanese government announced their new, aforementioned legal high policy. These events don&#39;t seem like a coincidence to me.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01a3faa41154970b2013-12-18T00:51:49Z2013-12-18T00:51:49ZCyrusI may have tried posting too soon after the earlier comments—too eager, it seems (if I didn't, as I suspect,...<p>I may have tried posting too soon after the earlier comments—too eager, it seems (if I didn&#39;t, as I suspect, I thank the moderator for their patience).</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>I&#39;ll note Mr. Mikuriya&#39;s study doesn&#39;t control for many other explanations, and that he was also a well known activist.</p>
<p>Additionally, as is written in the paper, the efficacy for the 92 patients results from clear sample selection bias.</p>
<p>His paper only proves substitution may have worked for a comparatively small number of cannabis-using drinkers. The number of drinkers (and problem drinkers) in California is not small. The number of people Dr. Mikuriya prescribed cannabis to (Californian cannabis prescriptions being notoriously easy to get) before dying in 2007 was “over 9000”, and presumably occurred after the medical marijuana act in 1996. So, after a “review of [his patient] records” in 2002, he was only able to locate 92 people who may have substituted cannabis for alcohol. Assuming his cannabis prescription rate was stable between the above years, that means about 92/4000 of Mr. Mikuriya&#39;s patients reduced their drinking by replacing it with cannabis (another at least somewhat harmful drug). And this is at the clinic of a guy, who made quite a fuss about substituting alcohol with cannabis. That&#39;s not particularly impressive.</p>
<p>I wanted evidence of a substantial substitution effect occurring to counteract post-legalization rises in overall drug prevalence, or evidence there would be no or nearly no rise in drug prevalence. Afterwards, I quoted data showing a noticeable positive correlation between polysubstance cannabis and alcohol use. You gave me the aforementioned paper, to which I&#39;ve replied, as well as Dr. Anderson&#39;s paper suggesting substitution may lower the number of drinkers driving by 12% and problem drinkers driving by 14% (but not reduce car crashes; I suspect at best they&#39;re just inebriating with another substance now). After legalization, as overall drug prevalence rose, the number of car crashes would also rise. In any case, the data doesn&#39;t support any substantial, post-legalization substitution of drug use.</p>
<p>You&#39;ve said twice there&#39;s “abundant” and “considerable [...] evidence” this substantial substitution effect you suggest would occur for all drugs. In fact, part of your argument seems to hinge on the optimistic idea of a massive substitution effect occurring for all drugs. But so far you&#39;ve provided only evidence of substitutions among a rather small portion of problem drinkers, and a study showing problem drinking before or during driving has decreased a fairly small amount while the number of car crashes hasn&#39;t. I suspect this is the height of the evidence you&#39;re going to find, because I&#39;ve read of no drug policy scholar that seriously thinks a massive substitution effect would prevent either the majority of problems from or rises in drug prevalence. But I shall keep asking you for evidence. I look forward to it.</p>
<p>Feel free to recommend books, too. On a somewhat related note, Google Dr. Mark Asbridge&#39;s meta-analysis of acute cannabis use and crashes.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b032ac609970d2013-12-17T16:50:58Z2013-12-17T20:20:43ZCyrusI was certain I posted my third comment yesterday morning. I'll post it a little later (excepting overlap), and hope...<p>I was certain I posted my third comment yesterday morning. I&#39;ll post it a little later (excepting overlap), and hope you forgive me if it seems out of place now.</p>
<p>Some predicted the HAT scheme to fail because the addict park was a failure. </p>
<p>It is a red herring, because your argument is based on legalizing drugs. You&#39;re not showing that a liberal approach to drug policy need not be disastrous. You&#39;re showing that a small, strictly controlled medical program may work and can have benefits while drugs are still illegal. You&#39;re then conflating it with legalization by comments like “showing a liberal approach to drug policy need not be disastrous”. The two are completely different, and the one cannot be used as evidence of the other except as a misdirection and distraction from your position.</p>
<p>The three categories are used to encompass the entire population, who each fall into one or the other.</p>
<p>I think I&#39;ve addressed it multiple ways, now. By affecting the culture, drug laws and consistent enforcement against drugs influences people against general drug taking. Most legal highs (excluding alcohol and tobacco, which are unique cases) are new entries into the three countries under discussion. After introduction, they&#39;re within a few years typically made illegal. In Japan, I understand laws are also being introduced to try blanketing these new, temporarily legal entries.</p>
<p>My contention is that there will be a nontrivial increase in overall drug use and consumption after legalization (especially for non-cannabinoids). I&#39;ve provided many ways by which this will occur. The risk is much too great.</p>
<p>Since you mention &quot;the drug war”, any benefits are no guarantee minority poor would be better off in a legal drug regime—that would depend on whether consumption rates in their neighbourhoods increased and by how much.</p>
<p>I predict legalization could devastate many poor, drug infested communities. Even though minority poor do have disproportionately high levels of heroin and crack dependence, these levels are nowhere near any kind of “ceiling” on potential dependence (and disprove any idea of the national drug prevalence being a ceiling for other areas). For instance, US inner-city neighbourhoods lack the treatment and prevention resources of the middle class. Moreover, according to economic theory, the price elasticity of demand is generally higher for goods that consume a large fraction of disposable income. Current poor users spend most of their disposable income on, for example, cocaine and heroin. They may greatly expand consumption (the price elasticity of demand may be particularly high). For this reason, some prominent minority leaders argue that legalization is “the moral equivalent of genocide”.</p>
<p>As I originally wrote in my third reply, I&#39;m going to need to step back from this for the pre-Christmas rush of work and family obligations. I don&#39;t think it makes sense to continue in an over two week old article after another week and a half. Perhaps we can bookend this discussion, and continue on a future drug article?</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b0320d915970d2013-12-17T04:25:13Z2013-12-17T09:59:03ZCyrusMy mistake on the bottom two lines in your Sweden comment, which I seem to have misread. The rest of...<p>My mistake on the bottom two lines in your Sweden comment, which I seem to have misread. The rest of what I said about Sweden stands, though.</p>Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b031ee791970d2013-12-17T02:08:31Z2013-12-17T09:59:03ZJoshua WoodersonCyrus – I have every faith in the truth of your premises (so no further citations needed, thank you) but...<p>Cyrus – I have every faith in the truth of your premises (so no further citations needed, thank you) but it is rather less clear that your conclusions follow from them. </p>
<p>For instance, I wonder how far your comments regarding the effect of the law on conventional and post-conventional individuals are applicable to legal highs. It depends, presumably, at what level of abstraction these individuals interpret the law, or the norms it embodies. If they take the law to be expressing disapproval of drug-taking per se, then perhaps, as you suggest, they would not simply be driven to use legal variants of the proscribed drugs. But I think it more likely that they would interpret the law as disapproving specifically (and perhaps exclusively) of prohibited drugs. </p>
<p>In fact, to the extent that the law is perceived as an arbiter of what is fit for human consumption, the existence of drug laws may be counter-productive in terms of discouraging the use of legal highs (certainly many Americans who abuse prescription drugs are under the impression that they are safer, and do so largely for that reason). So your response fails to address the crucial point about the possibility of substitution of proscribed drugs for other, often more dangerous ones.</p>
<p>You also fail in your response to give any indication of just how many people fall into the conventional and post-conventional categories, and to what extent the law is the decisive factor in determining their behaviour, when set against the norms established by peer influence and so on. If your contention is just that more people would take drugs if they were made legal, then you are pushing at an open door, because I have already conceded as much. If on the other hand you are claiming that there would be a significant increase in the use of the drugs in question (however &#39;significant&#39; is understood), then your case remains unproven. </p>
<p>A few brief remarks on the Swiss program. It is of course inherently limited in its scope by the requirements that heroin addicts have to meet before being eligible, but 1200 users is, according to the most recent figures, around one in twenty of the total population of heroin users, which is hardly negligible. Its apparent success (however modest) does, though, have deeper significance, in that it shows, first, that a relatively liberal approach to drug policy need not be disastrous (as many predicted the HAT scheme would be), and secondly, that removing the supply of drugs from the black market can have overwhelmingly positive effects in terms of health and crime. So hardly a red herring. </p>
<p>Incidentally, I was convinced of the folly of the drug war before I became a libertarian.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01a3fa7f0e7e970b2013-12-16T02:10:03Z2013-12-16T09:53:55ZCyrusThere's availability. It includes the price effect. There's also the likely intrusion of marketing firms into newly legal drug markets....<p>There&#39;s availability. It includes the price effect. There&#39;s also the likely intrusion of marketing firms into newly legal drug markets. Since I&#39;ve written about both to some degree in previous posts, I won&#39;t here.</p>
<p>Informal social controls, another factor, can be broken into social norms and informal sanctions. Cialdini et al. (1991) demonstrated the value of distinguishing two types of norms: injunctive norms, and descriptive norms. Injunctive norms are one&#39;s perception of how other people believe one should behave. They can come from different sources—peers, parents, siblings, coworkers, neighbours, the mass media, authority figures, one&#39;s church—and vary in size of effect directly depending on one&#39;s bond to the source. For drug use, the content of injunctive norms involves the appropriateness of obedience to drug laws versus acceptability of drug use. It&#39;s likely the latter is increased by legalization&#39;s influence on preconventional types, conventional types, and the part of post-conventional types mentioned in my reply&#39;s first part.</p>
<p>Descriptive norms are people&#39;s perceptions of how others actually behave. They, for instance, provide contextual clues to appropriate or acceptable conduct in a situation, as well as means of vicarious learning. Studies have shown that when people know others have broken the law, they are more likely to break it (Cialdini et al., 1991; Mullen, Cooper, &amp; Driskell, 1990; Stalans, Kinsey, &amp; Smith, 1991). In this case, if people learn others (such as those people of the groups from the aforementioned three categories of types of people) are doing drugs, they will be more likely to do drugs.</p>
<p>Informal social controls are active expressions of approval or disapproval. Norms are passive sources of information, but they can be expressed by active social sanctioning, such as disapproval, ridicule, resentment, or rejection. Influenced by these controls, potential drug users consider the shame, embarrassment, ridicule by their peers, or harm to their reputation they could suffer if seen engaging in deviant behaviour (Braithwaite, 1989; Grasmick &amp; Bursik, 1990). If you legalize drugs, you make them more socially acceptable and thus weaken deterrents of shame, embarrassment, or ridicule towards people who use them—possibly increasing it towards abstainers in some social settings (see how non-drinkers, especially those who don&#39;t drive, can be treated).</p>
<p>By legalizing drugs, you likely increase overall prevalence of drug taking. By consistently enforcing laws against drug use, you send a different message that positively affects the culture&#39;s attitude towards drug taking. I support consistently enforcing laws against drug possession and use in a concentrated effort to deter it. But as I said, even our current laws are better than legalization.</p>
<p>I&#39;ve borrowed heavily from parts of Rob MacCoun&#39;s analysis. There are a couple other variables. I can go on. Let me know. I can also provide the full text for citations I&#39;ve pulled from MacCoun&#39;s work on demand, but lack space here.</p>
<p>You keep trying to position yourself as a pragmatist, but I don&#39;t think you would hold the same position if you weren&#39;t a libertarian.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01a3fa7d6744970b2013-12-15T23:49:23Z2013-12-16T09:53:55ZCyrusI'll reply in three posts over time. The Swiss program has only proven effective in countries where drugs are illegal,...<p>I&#39;ll reply in three posts over time.</p>
<p>The Swiss program has only proven effective in countries where drugs are illegal, for a very small proportion of heroin users (despite increased numbers of centers, it&#39;s hit a wall at about 1,200 participants). The illegality of drugs drives that small proportion of users to a program unattractive and unhelpful to their quitting. Without it, the program may fall apart from lack of attendance. In short, Switzerland&#39;s drug laws are part of the overall policy, and the maintenance program only helps a small fraction of users.</p>
<p>Could you please stop the contemptible practice of trying to use a small medical (social work) program as a red herring to give legalization for recreational use a good name? Thank you.</p>
<p>As for Sweden, your bottom two lines support that they&#39;re socially liberal, not conservative.</p>
<p>I mentioned our conversation on social conservatism to a Swedish local (now Canadian resident) a couple days ago. He told me social conservatism is on the rise among Swedish youth, as a form of rebellion. If it&#39;s on the rise as a form of rebellion, that rather makes my point about the main body of Swedes being socially liberal for me.</p>
<p>It only “flies in the face” of anything if you believe interdependence of the variables only goes one way. I don&#39;t. I think they&#39;re interdependent both ways (though legal policies can be rammed through by small political factions), and that consistent enforcement of deterrent laws positively influences them. Conversely, legalization will have negative effects.</p>
<p>I mean, if you insist on wading into the psychosocial swamp waters, I think that besides the fear of legal risks from consistent enforcement, the mere existence of laws constrains some people from drug use.</p>
<p>There are some people that internalize the legal norm as morally good, and breaking it as morally repugnant. By legalizing drugs, you change the legal norm that&#39;s being internalized by future generations. If drugs are legal, they internalize that drug taking is okay (because it&#39;s not prohibited by law, therefore not morally wrong), and become more receptive and more likely to take drugs.</p>
<p>There&#39;s also the type of person who Tapp and Kohlberg (1971) describe as being at the “conventional level” (the former paragraph refers to some at the “post-conventional level”), where people exhibit a “rule maintaining” mentality, and have an approval seeking mentality rather than internalizing laws as morals. For these people, the mere fact that something is illicit may have an impact on behaviour independent of the magnitude of the punishment or consistency of enforcement. Some decriminalizers use this as a reason decriminalization would have a less severe effect than legalization (it&#39;s sometimes called the symbolic threshold effect).</p>
<p>People at the “preconventional level” tend to operate most directly on fear of legal risks. Though any person capable of any degree of rational fear is affected by consistently enforced deterrence laws.</p>
<p>I actually think even the current state of affairs is better than legalizing drugs.</p>Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b02f6ed23970c2013-12-15T01:40:34Z2013-12-15T08:37:33ZJoshua WoodersonCyrus - To deny that legal highs would be substituted for proscribed drugs seems to me to fly in the...<p>Cyrus - To deny that legal highs would be substituted for proscribed drugs seems to me to fly in the face of common sense. If the only thing stopping someone from using a drug is fear of the law, why would they not turn to a legal variant? As to why there appear not to be high levels of legal high consumption in countries with strict drug laws, my theory is that conservative attitudes to drug use, and hence low rates thereof, are the cause, rather than the consequence, of punitive drug policies. The more people there are taking drugs, the harder the law becomes to enforce, and the less appetite there is on the part of authorities (and the public) to see otherwise respectable locked up for drug possession.</p>
<p>&#39;you would be mugging taxpayers to pay for people&#39;s selfish drug habits directly&#39;</p>
<p>Unless you oppose all taxes on principle – which clearly you don&#39;t – it is rather odd to oppose an apparently successful policy on this basis. Of course, the prescription program is not especially radical, but it is undoubtedly more liberal than the policy you propose, and in any case I imagine any pragmatic drug policy would treat harder drugs rather differently from soft ones. (You rightly note that the policy deprives heroin use of whatever glamour it might have, but then your concern that it would increase use of the drug would seem to be unfounded). </p>
<p>The policy has its limitations, of course, but then the onus is on you to show that any alternative would be an improvement. (Sweden, notably, has a high proportion of problematic drug use and AIDS cases, thanks largely, I suspect, to its refusal to countenance harm reduction measures). </p>
<p>As for Swedish social attitudes, you are right that they seem liberal in some regards – most notably gender equality, although as I remarked to KY the government&#39;s enthusiasm for this may not be representative of public opinion – but not so much in others. What data I was able to find suggested that Swedish youth generally approve of marriage and disapprove of divorce, for instance, and apparently a large number of Swedes oppose their country&#39;s notorious law criminalising the purchase of sex for money on the basis that the prostitutes should be criminalised as well. </p>Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef01a3fa6b8c4b970b2013-12-15T01:39:39Z2013-12-15T08:37:33ZJoshua WoodersonCyrus – 'use of the two drugs is now positively associated.' Well, speaking purely anecdotally, I have met a number...<p>Cyrus – &#39;use of the two drugs is now positively associated.&#39;</p>
<p>Well, speaking purely anecdotally, I have met a number of cannabis smokers who were somewhat pious about their non-use of tobacco. And opposition to &#39;Big Tobacco&#39; (and also, I suppose, &#39;Big Alcohol&#39;) suits the counter-cultural pretensions of many users of illicit drugs. So the connection is perhaps not quite as straightforward as you suggest.</p>
<p>More to the point, though, there is a considerable body of evidence that cannabis is used as a substitute for alcohol by problem drinkers, if no-one else, and apparently quite successfully. To wit, Tod Mikuriya&#39;s 2004 study of alcoholics for whom he had prescribed cannabis as treatment: &#39;As could be expected among patients seeking physician approval to treat alcoholism with cannabis, all reported that they’d found it &quot;very effective&quot; (45) or &quot;effective&quot; (38). </p>
<p>Efficacy was inferred from other responses on seven questionnaires. Two patients did not make follow-up visits but had reported efficacy at the initial interview. Nine patients reported that they had practiced total abstinence from alcohol for more than a year and attributed their success to cannabis.&#39;</p>
<p>The discussion on the link between medical marijuana and traffic fatalities may have involved somebody else with a similar pseudonym. Quoting from a 2011 TIME article: &#39;States that legalize medical marijuana see fewer fatal car accidents, according to a new study, in part because people may be substituting marijuana smoking for drinking alcohol.</p>
<p>Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, have legalized medical marijuana since the mid-1990s. For the new study, economists looked at 1990-2009 government data on marijuana use and traffic deaths in the 13 states that had passed legalization laws during that time period. The data were from the National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.</p>
<p>Comparing traffic deaths over time in states with and without medical marijuana law changes, the researchers found that fatal car wrecks dropped by 9% in states that legalized medical use — which was largely attributable to a decline in drunk driving. The researchers controlled for other factors like changes in driving laws and the number of miles driven that could affect the results.</p>
<p>Medical marijuana laws were not significantly linked with changes in daytime crash rates or those that didn’t involve alcohol. But the rate of fatal crashes in which a driver had consumed any alcohol dropped 12% after medical marijuana was legalized, and crashes involving high levels of alcohol consumption fell 14%.&#39;</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b02c3056b970d2013-12-13T01:46:06Z2013-12-13T10:06:44ZCyrusI neglected to reply to your mention of the cross cultural earlier today. I hit 500 words. But I left...<p>I neglected to reply to your mention of the cross cultural earlier today. I hit 500 words. But I left out a reply to part of your cross cultural criticism, because I think Mrs. KY&#39;s post deals well with it. </p>
<p>I don&#39;t think the utopian Swedes can be, by any particularly fair measure, called socially conservative. I understand they have a significant proportion of women in traditionally male dominated jobs, and no real stigma about this (near two-thirds of degrees are awarded to, and 60% of undergraduates are, women). They were also one of the first countries in the world to ban prejudice against homosexuals and give same sex couples legal partnership rights, as well as the first country in the world to allow transexuals to legally change their sex. I also understand that the Swedes are quite famously, very permissive and liberal about sex, nudity, and sex-related topics. They&#39;ve clearly broke with the old, traditional Lutheran values.</p>
<p> As Mrs. KY says, the significant differences between these countries suggest and support that, in fact, consistently enforced laws to interdict demand will be able to work in many different countries, including Britain.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b02b15288970d2013-12-12T07:31:26Z2013-12-12T09:13:07ZCyrusI don't recall that discussion. I'll quote from Caulkin, Kleiman, and Hawken's “Drugs and Drug Policy: ...”: The culture wars...<p>I don&#39;t recall that discussion. I&#39;ll quote from Caulkin, Kleiman, and Hawken&#39;s “Drugs and Drug Policy: ...”:</p>
<p>The culture wars play less of a role in determining drug policy than they used to. The days when cannabis-smokers disdained drinking are gone; indeed, use of the two drugs is now positively associated. Smokers and drinkers are two to three times more likely to have used marijuana than are nonsmokers and nondrinkers, and people who have used marijuana are one and a half to three times as likely to be current smokers and drinkers as are people who have never used marijuana.</p>
<p>I understand the two rather conspire together now. </p>
<p>On legal highs, I reiterate my point. If there were some sort of correlation between enforcement of illegal drug laws and a substantial rise in consumption of “legal highs” like you suggested in the comment I replied to, surely the inverse correlation would show up in different countries that strictly enforce illegal drug laws. Based on this, successful deterrence wouldn&#39;t substantially increase demand for alcohol or legal highs.</p>
<p>It&#39;s misleading and false to refer to heroin maintenance, which isn&#39;t significantly different from methadone programs except that it&#39;s more controlled, as a legalization project. Like methadone programs, it&#39;s chiefly aimed at “maintaining” the supply of heroin users. Recreational use and possession of heroine are still illegal in Switzerland. It&#39;s a social work project dressed as a medical licensing project, but a very long way from legalization.</p>
<p>The Swiss prescription scheme (heroin maintenance) has certainly had some success. Though, as with methadone, you would be mugging taxpayers to pay for people&#39;s selfish drug habits directly, instead of taking action to directly lower the overall cost to non-drug and drug users. Heroine maintenance is also more expensive than methadone. The evaluators of the Swiss project estimated total daily cost per patient per day at about 50 francs ($35), roughly twice the daily cost for a standard methadone program.</p>
<p>The Swiss evaluation was, of course, patient-focused. One concern is that broad availability heroin maintenance would increase attractiveness of heroin use or even more generally of drug use. To answer this question, more than pilot programs are required because it&#39;s a function of scale. </p>
<p>Finally, it&#39;s not even clear that heroin maintenance is an important policy innovation—it depends on how many users seek it (Farrell and Hall, 1998). Swiss&#39; recruitment troubles suggest few users will enter the program, even if it sounds attractive in theory. For instance, the Geneva site found only one control group joined the program, after the site provided access. The regime at the Swiss policy&#39;s heart, with its strict routine of provision of the drug in a sterile environment, may seem unattractive and unhelpful to users. It steals the glamour from the drug dominating their lives, without trying to help them quit. Heroin maintenance may do little more than improve the performance of a small fraction of people that would otherwise choose methadone, but prove poor participants in those programs.</p>Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b029c47c1970d2013-12-11T16:09:59Z2013-12-11T17:37:23ZJoshua WoodersonCyrus – given the seeming lack of data on relative levels of prescription drug abuse, perhaps it would be wise...<p>Cyrus – given the seeming lack of data on relative levels of prescription drug abuse, perhaps it would be wise to abandon that area of discussion. Suffice it to say that the Anglosphere countries are, language and maybe legal systems aside, sufficiently different to account for disparities in the prevalence of drug abuse. Health care systems may be a factor, although I doubt whether public ownership is the salient difference here, considering that the largely private (though hardly free from government meddling) American system manages to produce vastly more prescription drug users than the largely state-run British system. </p>
<p>Property crime is associated primarily with the use of heroin, this being both especially addictive and expensive to maintain, so it would seem instructive to look at the success of various approaches to heroin use in reducing property crime. And in this respect the Swiss prescription scheme comes out very well: on all indicators, criminal involvement in the most serious offences fell significantly (50-90%), according to the 1998 Killias et al. study (drug trafficking and the use of other hard drugs also apparently decreased).</p>
<p>As for the purported increase in violent crime and dangerous driving, one has to take into account the effect of legalisation on crime associated with legal drugs (i.e. alcohol). I seem to recall discussing with you before the evidence from states that had legalised medical marijuana of a substitution effect for alcohol, and the subsequent decline in traffic fatalities.</p>
<p>I think the situation with alcohol tax in the UK may be somewhat different from that in the US (and Canada, though I must confess to knowing little about your country). We certainly pay far more in alcohol duties than most of Europe, and as I understand it the duty rises at above the rate of inflation. I&#39;m far from convinced that punitive taxation does much to curb problem drinking, because alcoholics and heavy drinkers tend to be less responsive to price increases than most. In any case, illegal drug users are very much a minority, so there would be little political resistance to such measures (the situation I imagine would be more comparable with that of tobacco).</p>
<p>On legal highs, you acknowledge that &#39;the Japanese are also liberal compared to some countries towards many legal highs, especially in large cities like Tokyo&#39;, while noting that &#39;There has not, however, been any significant increase in demand for either legal highs or alcohol&#39;. Does this not support my theory that the rate of drug use is largely independent of the law? If the Japanese make little effort to curb the use of legal highs, and yet use remains low, one seems forced to conclude that culture is the crucial factor. As noted above, there is abundant evidence for a substitution effect. To quote a Daily Mail article from last year: &#39;MXE [methoxetamine] has become popular because unlike ketamine it is claimed it does not cause severe bladder cramps.&#39;</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b028c578b970d2013-12-10T23:15:36Z2013-12-11T08:49:29ZCyrusI may have conflated the use numbers from Canada with the abuse numbers for the USA, which would explain the...<p>I may have conflated the use numbers from Canada with the abuse numbers for the USA, which would explain the discrepancy. Worse, I can&#39;t find comparable data for abuse in Canada, because CADUMS only seems to have measured people who abused prescription pills &quot;to get high&quot;. Of course, in a household survey of abuse of something so socially accepted, many people are going to at least believe they&#39;re not using them to get high.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b028761c0970c2013-12-10T16:02:08Z2013-12-10T18:31:00ZCyrusThey can be put aside for comparisons with Britain. The cultural similarities, more or less, come from the fact that...<p>They can be put aside for comparisons with Britain. The cultural similarities, more or less, come from the fact that these are all Anglosphere countries. If it were due to cultural factors under any other category I can think of, the problem would have presented in only one or two of the countries.</p>
<p>The institutional factors, well, proposing those would probably not be taken seriously unless specified more clearly. But if you mean their health care systems, the three health care systems are different, with the rather privatized American system standing in contrast to a (very nearly) exclusively public health care system in Canada, which many Canadians love to compare with the American model as a great point of national pride. </p>
<p>I state the problem is worse in Canada because there are more people abusing prescription pills for non-medical reasons here. This is likely because of its public health care system, which makes it easier for people to acquire pills (sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, and painkillers) than the US one.</p>
<p>It&#39;s often extremely hard to enforce laws against prescription pill abuse. For instance, many dealers sell part or all of their own prescription. They sell the pills individually (often for dollars a pill). If a police officer were to search their place, they could simply claim they took too many pills that month, which is not illegal. One of the sorts of problems you encounter with any scheme to weaken laws is that it becomes tremendously easy for drug users and dealers to exploit regulations when the drugs themselves are legal.</p>
<p>The 2012 annual statistics on alcohol for England from the ONS (Office for National Statistics) confirm a continuing rise in alcohol-related and primary alcohol attributable conditions. For instance, alcohol-related admissions rose 11% on the previous year with primary diagnosis conditions up 2.1%. Similarly, in 2011 there were 167,764 prescription items for drugs for the treatment of alcohol dependency. This is an increase of 4.7 per cent on the 2010 figure (160,181) and an increase of 63% on the 2003 figure (102,741). </p>
<p>This occurs despite any falls since 2004 in the proportion of adults drinking alcohol. For instance, while many continuing admissions are thought to be linked to decades of rising consumption before 2004, among various groups those who are drinking are drinking more.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b0286b2c6970d2013-12-10T13:12:08Z2013-12-10T14:11:10ZCyrusFirst two clarifications of my previous reply. I wrote, “ For example, adjusted for inflation, alcohol taxes have fallen by...<p>First two clarifications of my previous reply. I wrote, “ For example, adjusted for inflation, alcohol taxes have fallen by four-fifths over the past sixty years, and it’s still perfectly legal to sell alcohol to people who chronically get drunk and break the law.” I should have added “(in the US)” after “sixty years”. To clarify what I was saying, I should have also written ”... , nonproblem users (though intoxicants also create plenty problem users as well; cigarettes, however, lack intoxicating properties and are in a slightly different category) who like the companies that supply them”.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b02860202970b2013-12-10T12:46:54Z2013-12-10T14:11:10ZCyrusI've been asked for the source of the non-American statistics I presented on prescription pill abuse. The information for Northern...<p>I&#39;ve been asked for the source of the non-American statistics I presented on prescription pill abuse. The information for Northern Ireland is from UNODCs &quot;The Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Policy Direction Issues&quot; discussion paper (page 8, I believe). For Canada, &quot;Prescription Drug Summary: Prescription Sedatives and Tranquilizers&quot; (page 2) from the Canadian Centre on Substance on Substance Abuse. I would include the links if I could - copies of both of these can be located online. While not very statistical in nature, speaking from the perspective of a local (Canadian), it&#39;s also widely accepted as a problem here (at least among those I&#39;ve spoken to in this city).</p>
<p>Since I&#39;m sourcing information, aside from citations of many of the statistics from various sources, and books (which I can supply if I&#39;m ever asked), I also owe several citations to &quot;Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know&quot; by Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins, and Angela Hawken, which I have paraphrased (a couple times very near quoted in a rush) without proper citations and formatting - I&#39;m citing it now. I recommend it to everyone looking for a primer on drug policy (mostly aimed at America, but with information often applicable elsewhere).</p>
<p>For those hoping to expand their libraries on drug policy, I recommend &quot;Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places (RAND Studies in Policy Analysis)&quot; by Robert MacCoun, &quot;Against Excess&quot; by Mark Kleiman, and most books Mr. Caulkins&#39;s name is on. These books are all by various types of (at least) cannabis decriminalisers and more or less openly argue for it (though they&#39;re not straight forward polemics, which is a format I&#39;ve started to think is a dying art), except for &quot;Drugs and Drug Policy ...&quot; (which at least seems to try to at least seem balanced). In any case, many here would likely accuse me of being a propagandist fraud if I only recommended books agreeing with a position such as mine (or whose position I agree with), such as Mr. Hitchens&#39;s &quot;The War We Never Fought&quot;.</p>
<p>Apologies in advance if recommending books is way too presumptuous of me, or if there&#39;s typos in this comment, as I&#39;m on my way out the door - this is an awful time of year for finding time to write online.</p>Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b027d33ea970b2013-12-10T02:24:01Z2013-12-10T10:08:27ZJoshua WoodersonCyrus – I'm curious as to where you got your data on prescription drug abuse in Canada and Ireland. Most...<p>Cyrus – I&#39;m curious as to where you got your data on prescription drug abuse in Canada and Ireland. Most of the information I could find from my (admittedly fairly cursory) research suggested that the use and abuse of prescription drugs were most prevalent in the US. Partnership for a Drug Free Canada (which is presumably sympathetic to your view) states &#39;Canada is the world’s second largest per capita consumer of prescription opioids after the United States.&#39; Perhaps the problem is that &#39;abuse&#39; has no universally accepted definition.</p>
<p>Either way, the suggestion that &#39;cultural and institutional confounders can be safely put aside&#39; because the problem exists outside the US is something of a non-sequitur; as far as I&#39;m aware, the punishment of prescription drug abusers is not noticeably laxer in those countries than elsewhere, so there must be some &#39;cultural and institutional confounders&#39; that account for its prevalence there. </p>
<p>&#39;It doesn&#39;t at all follow that it would therefore disappear with the black market.&#39;</p>
<p>Indeed not. But given the legal availability of opium, anyone tempted to use opiates would, one might think, be unlikely to dabble with heroin. Existing addicts might continue to use it, but for them it would be a good deal safer as well. Nor would they be tempted to turn to even nastier variants of the drug (Krokodil, for instance).</p>
<p>How do alcohol companies &#39;create and sustain abusive consumption patterns&#39;? Alcohol consumption in the UK has significantly declined over the past decade, while alcohol-related violence (which is presumably one indicator of problem drinking) has remained largely constant (and declined slightly, if official figures are to be believed), and yet there is at least as much alcohol advertising as there ever was. I would have thought alcoholics are the least likely people to require encouragement to drink (and much advertising is in any case intended to increase the market share of the brand, not the overall level of consumption). </p>
<p>Perhaps you were planning to address it in your next comment, but I would be interested to hear your response to my point regarding legal highs and alcohol. </p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b02729bbb970d2013-12-09T17:11:39Z2013-12-09T17:11:39ZCyrusSingapore is multicultural—without contest. Demographically, they have a smaller main ethnicity than Britain, and fairly large other ethnic demographics. They...<p>Singapore is multicultural—without contest. Demographically, they have a smaller main ethnicity than Britain, and fairly large other ethnic demographics. They have vibrant (not small) enclaves of immigrant culture. Whether they&#39;re more multicultural than Britain may be arguable. Whether they&#39;re multicultural isn&#39;t.</p>
<p>Now, to finish replying.</p>
<p>To the second last paragraph. US cocaine policy has been unduly slandered here. For instance, the policy successfully lowered cocaine use from 3% of their population in 1985 (5.7 million Americans) to 0.7% (1.5 million people), where it stayed after 1992 until recently. It&#39;s now risen again to about 5.7 million people (1.7% now), but the US population has increased by 100 million, and then there&#39;s the shift to Latin American immigration, the massive cartels right across the border, and other variables to have helped drive the number of users up. America&#39;s cocaine figures are actually somewhat impressive given these factors, with which they must contend. Most of these factors, however, don&#39;t exist in Britain and would therefore not complicate any policy of deterrence there or drive up usage there.</p>
<p>To the final paragraph. There&#39;s little doubt Sweden, Singapore, or Japan consistently enforce their laws against possession. The Japanese are also liberal compared to some countries towards many legal highs, especially in large cities like Tokyo. There has not, however, been any significant increase in demand for either legal highs or alcohol in response to deterrence policies in any of these countries. Either way, the laws around legal highs can also be tightened to help close that particular, recent exploited loophole (as some country&#39;s are now starting to do), and nipped in the bud by being quickly made illegal after introduction.</p>
<p>Since alcohol is already consumed by most of the population, any increase in its use would be negligible compared to now. </p>
<p>On the whole, there is little to no reason to believe this would occur, and certainly not enough to believe we should “therefore legalize heroine, crack or cocaine”—an absurd suggestion. The burden of proof here is now on you.</p>
<p>As suggested in the last paragraph of the &quot;Massie Attack&quot; comment I referred to, it&#39;s a rather great one before implementing such a policy.</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b0271a1bc970c2013-12-09T17:08:03Z2013-12-09T17:09:58ZCyrusTo your fourth paragraph. Property crime reduction is often put forward as if it would absolutely occur for all drugs....<p>To your fourth paragraph. Property crime reduction is often put forward as if it would absolutely occur for all drugs. But in some cases, legalization would probably increase property crimes. By increasing the number of users and the consumption of current users, you would create more problem users. By creating more problem users, you would create, for instance, more cocaine users unable to hold jobs (whether or not its legal, in the vast majority of cases), and therefore likely to support their habit through the fast and easy profits of crimes. In short, the source of much of this crime is problem use of drugs you want to legalize.</p>
<p>Legalization would also likely increase the amount of spouse beating, driving under the influence, and the number of deaths from what are on their own, in fact (even with legal production quality), dangerous drugs.</p>
<p>I actually provide the basis in the comment mentioning economics, and I was being conservative with my numbers. A great deal of time and effort goes into trying to track, record, and monitor the illegal drug market. In any case, I was playing it safe with a conservative example here.</p>
<p>To the fifth. Neither micro-breweries nor advertisement banning (for tobacco or drink) have successfully curbed marketing. </p>
<p>True, the cigarette makers have slowly been forced back— partly because cigarettes, unlike most other drugs, do not create a large number of happy, nonproblem users (as well as problem users, but particularly because they lack intoxicant properties) who like the companies that supply them. But the alcoholic-beverage industry, with its legion of not-very-profitable moderate users providing political cover for the relative handful of very profitable problem users, is having great success in resisting the adoption of effective policies to reduce problem drinking. Adjusted for inflation, alcohol taxes have fallen by four-fifths over the past sixty years, and it’s still perfectly legal to sell alcohol to people who chronically get drunk and break the law. </p>
<p>No important alcohol-control measure— not even higher taxation, which would seem to be a natural response to (for instance) a US state budget crises— is now on the political agenda anywhere in the United States, with the single exception of the Sobriety 24/ 7 Project started in South Dakota, which aims at preventing drinking by those convicted of drunken driving at least twice. Alcohol taxes are much higher in Europe, but the political power of the alcoholic beverage industries constrains European policies as much as U.S. policies. Those who claim that “regulation and taxation” could provide the benefits of consistent law enforcement without its costs might reasonably be asked why that doesn&#39;t seem to have happened with the one intoxicant that has actually been legalized.</p>
<p>(I&#39;m unsure what the last sentence means—the overall advertising budgets have increased since 1998 in the UK, with a slight drop in a year after the 2002 Act, and refocusing on the young.)</p>Cyrus commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b0271391c970d2013-12-09T16:02:58Z2013-12-09T17:09:59ZCyrusI don't have room to reply properly to everything in one comment. I will reply to the rest in a...<p>I don&#39;t have room to reply properly to everything in one comment. I will reply to the rest in a second, but it may not get through until the next moderation period (I&#39;m usually forced to write quite late in the British day, from here in Canada).</p>
<p>I meant my last comment under the “Massie Attack” article.</p>
<p>Your first two paragraphs aren&#39;t, in fact, true. For example, it&#39;s a problem in the United States, Canada, and Northern Ireland. The problem is (considerably) worse in Canada than in the United States, and seems quite worse in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the annual prevalence of prescription pills abused for nonmedical reasons, by people they weren&#39;t prescribed to, is 8.1% of their population for opioids (highest in the world in 2011), and 9.2% for sedatives and tranquilizers. Based on this, the cultural and institutional confounders can be safely put aside.</p>
<p>To the third paragraph. Heroin was created for the black market. It doesn&#39;t at all follow that it would therefore disappear with the black market. </p>
<p>I think prescription pills are a very generous (to legalizers) comparison with the likely outcome of legalizing drugs for recreational use. Drugs legalized for recreational use are likely to (in practice) end up with much more liberal sale policies because of the recreational legalization policy&#39;s objective; they&#39;re also often more pleasurable, creating greater incentive for use; finally, the withdrawals are often more terrible, creating greater deterrent to quitting once people start.</p>
<p>The vast majority of profits in industries selling recreational drugs come from problem users. For instance, the hardest drinking 10 percent, as a group, consumes 50 percent of the total alcohol consumed. The second decile takes between two and four drinks per day, accounting for another 30 percent of drinking. </p>
<p>This means when we create a licit industry selling an abusable drug, the resulting businesses will have a strong profit incentive to create and sustain abusive consumption patterns, because people with substance-abuse disorders consume most of the product. Supplying moderate or controlled use is merely a side business. So if we create a licit cannabis or cocaine industry, we should expect the industry’s product design, pricing, and marketing to be devoted to creating as much addiction as possible. If you consider that marketing executives earn their large salaries, and TV networks earn their huge per-second rates for advertising time, by actually influencing consumption decisions, the thought should trouble you.</p>
<p>To the second half, the opposite is often true. The newly created market for prescription pill abuse is now actually dumping some of its initiates into the heroin market, despite the safeness of prescription pills. The stated reason is that heroine is cheaper, and these people struggle financially. You want to make heroine even less expensive (even down to a few percent of the current price) by legalising it.</p>Joshua Wooderson commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b026b76fa970b2013-12-09T11:38:05Z2013-12-09T12:14:58ZJoshua WoodersonKY – 'relatively homogeneous' is perhaps contestable. 'Socially conservative' surely isn't (Muslims are not known for their liberal views on...<p>KY – &#39;relatively homogeneous&#39; is perhaps contestable. &#39;Socially conservative&#39; surely isn&#39;t (Muslims are not known for their liberal views on drug use). The Swedish government&#39;s notoriously &#39;progressive&#39; attitude to many social issues – gender equality, for instance – seems not to be entirely shared by the Swedish public. </p>
<p>Support for the sprawling welfare state depends, I think, on a belief in the essential benevolence of the state, and its ability to solve social problems, which betrays a kind of deferential authoritarian mindset that is not obviously incompatible with social conservatism (even if, as I think, rampant welfarism often has un-conservative consequences).</p>
<p>Nowhere did I say that we could draw lessons from the Netherlands, Greece and so on; I was simply pointing out the absence of any obvious correlation between national drug policy and the rate of drug use. </p>KY commented on 'Peter Hitchens on the Legal Drugs Alcohol and Tobacco'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c565553ef019b0261161d970b2013-12-08T18:05:34Z2013-12-08T18:05:34ZKYJosua Wooderson writes, “Singapore, Sweden and Japan are all relatively homogeneous, socially conservative countries, and, in the case of the...<p>Josua Wooderson writes,</p>
<p>“Singapore, Sweden and Japan are all relatively homogeneous, socially conservative countries, and, in the case of the first two, considerably smaller than the UK, so it is not clear that we can draw many lessons from their example.”</p>
<p>As Cyrus writes later, Singapore “isn&#39;t as nearly culturally homogenous as many think” – they are known having four official languages. </p>
<p>Moreover, I was rather surprised that Sweden was described as being “relatively homogeneous, socially conservative”. According to Statistics Sweden, ca. 27% inhabitants of Sweden have a full or partial foreign background – regarding the third largest city Malmö the number is more than 40%. The name Mohammed is one the most popular names given to newborn babies in Sweden. </p>
<p>I am not sure what “socially conservative” is meant in the quotation above. Sweden, however, has been strived after being perfect, utopian society through welfare state policies. Anyhow, my husband (Swede) was quite surprised at this description of the country. </p>
<p>Then I cannot see why Singapore (5,4 millions) and Sweden (9,5 mill.) are too small to draw many lessons for the UK (63 mill.) while the statistics of The Netherlands (17 mill.) and Greece (11 mill.) are mentioned as the references.</p>
<p>I think the cultural, demographical, social differences among Singapore, Sweden and Japan rather suggest and support the enforced deterrent laws will be able to work effectively to reduce harm in many different countries including the UK.<br />
</p>